Posted on 03/24/2002 7:03:09 PM PST by scripter
Notify the FAA immediately that their RADARs do not work!
Have you ever wondered how a RADAR is able to find the range to a target?
01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationi sm and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massive mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.
The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 16].
16 posted on 3/24/02 7:47 PM Hawaii-Aleutian by ZULU
Evolution alone is called atheism---secular humanism...spontaneous(big bang) matter/life---animal morphing(little bangs).
Evolution---matter development/life plus God is Creation.
You are both?
No problem?
And why not? If Intelligent Design can be proven wrong then it is falsifiable.
The sheer complexity, and the interrelatedness of all systems necessary for life should give you a hint that there is a lot more at work here than just random mutations.
One example is Mendellian genetics. Because any allele has only half a chance of being passed on to the next generation, the spread of even favorable mutations is pretty much impossible. In addition, a gene is so complicated that the creation of new ones, coding for new faculties, new phenotypes, is also practically impossible.
The difference between science and philosophy is that science gives proof of its assertions. Your statement that any hypothesis is science regardless of proof is utterly ridiculous. Just because evolution cannot give any proof of its assertions either in the fossil record or in any other way, does not mean that real science does not. Science proves its theories with repeatable experiments, calculations, predictions and practical applications. Evolution can do none of those, therefore it is not science.
Where did you get that from? "
From reading Darwin. It is just a huge mass of "just so stories", little more than a medieval bestiary. It is full of "proofs" which have been proven wrong such as the brachyocephalic index and the "melding" of traits from the parents which has been totally disproven by Mendellian genetics.
Many Experts Quoted on FUBAR State of Evolution
"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."
Jeffrey Dahmer, noted Evolutionist
ID doesn't say a god, as defined by earth's religions, is responsible for the existence of life on this planet. It simply says that an intelligence was behind life being on this planet. That could be ET's uncles and cousins for all we know. The point is that the complexity of life on the earth and the amount of time allowed (roughly 5 billion) years contradict a theory of gradual change and development.
Perhaps there's another planet out there someplace where "life" originated and this life is the source of other life in the universe. Perhaps, if we were on that planet a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life would be much more obvious than it is here on earth.
The point is this. Intelligent design doesn't necessarily mean a god. Like in the second or third "Star Trek" movie, it could be some kind of "genesis project" carried on by extra-terrestrial, intelligent beings.
As I recall it from my college days, an idea "graduates" from a hypothesis, to a Theory, to a "Law", as more experimental and observational data is compiled.
You ignore the predictions its made? You ignore that no other scientific theory for how we got here has been able to displace it?
Now, I know we talked about this before.
Did the intelligent beings evolve naturally? If they did, why can't we have done so? If they didn't, who created them, and how did those folks come to be? Did they evolve naturally? And so on, ad infinitum.
Of course this postpones the question of the origin of life. But does that really matter? If the data says that the complexity of life is too great on this planet to explain except by outside intervention, then so be it. I'm a grown up. I can live with that.
The point is this. The intelligent race that "seeded" life on earth had to have come from someplace. Perhaps the place where they came from contains obvious data that explains how life originated there. Perhaps the conditions on that planet are different in such a way that we would look at it and say, "Oh, I didn't think of that. It's so obvious now."
Because your test doesn't prove ID wrong. It would only demonstrate that an alternative method was at work, but there is not requirement that if ID is true no other process could be as well. They aren't exclusionary. Later evolution could have been "designed" in.
Well, I would contend that theories do not become laws. Theories and laws are different kinds of things. Theories are explanatory, whereas laws are simply descriptive. A law says, "here is a model or mathematical formula that predicts the behavior of this system," whereas a theory says, "here is a mechanism that causes this behavior" You can, and do, for instance, have both laws and theories of gravity, and they are separate and not genetically related.
I do agree, however, that hypotheses can become theories through elaboration, extension and testing. (In that case one might distinquish between explanatory hypotheses, which may become theories, and descriptive or generalizing hypotheses, which may become laws.)
Alright then, please give me three examples of scientific theories that have been demonstrably proven. Should be easy, if scientific theories really are proven, as you insist. Why do you stall?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.